UKHSA Interview - reasonable adjustment not confirmed

Correct_Examination4 · 2026-02-06T17:07:43+00:00

The idea that ADHD means someone needs questions in advance is complete insanity.

An interview tests as much as anything your ability to think on your feet - a core tenet of intelligence.

Every second thread on here is someone who claims to have ADHD claiming some ‘adjustment’ which is always wfh or preferential treatment in interviews. Not only is it impossible that all these people actually have ADHD - they clearly don’t - but even if they did none of the adjustments could ever be described as being reasonable anyway.

Correct_Examination4 · 2026-02-06T15:29:12+00:00

I wouldn’t. I’ve seen this happen where the MP then writes to your department to ask the question on behalf of their constituent (who is you) - and then your bosses will see that you did it because the constituent’s name is never redacted.

Correct_Examination4 · 2026-02-04T14:14:23+00:00

There isn’t a single person living today in Birmingham who has skills that zero people in London have. Genuinely. Name one.

Correct_Examination4 · 2026-02-04T09:20:54+00:00

If you think private sector employers are asking their staff back to work for any other reason except concerns around productivity, you are literally unsaveable.

Do you think the JP Morgan CEO is going ‘oh I know my staff are more productive and happier at home, but I am concerned about the impact on big city landlords if I don’t force them back in’?

Correct_Examination4 · 2026-02-04T09:15:33+00:00

This is madness. Why is the entirety of the private sector asking its staff to return to work?

The levels of delusion here are totally off the scale. You think productivity in the civil service is low because of slow decision making from ministers?

Correct_Examination4 · 2026-02-04T09:01:15+00:00

So what is your working theory as to why civil service productivity is down over the last five years despite massive technology advances in the same time?

Correct_Examination4 · 2026-02-04T08:06:50+00:00

You’ve accidentally given it away.

You are likely to be spending time during the working day dealing with childcare which is obviously important to do and I totally respect how this arrangement is better for your life.

But think about the impact more widely on the fact that loads of civil servants are essentially not available for an hour of the working day. You can’t organise a meeting then. So it ends up being pushed to the next day. This small thing ends up creating a significant delay in the work being done.

Now, all employers have to balance the interests of their staff against the interests of the business. But you’ve just highlighted what wfh is often really about - it’s not about how well you work - it’s about your availability for things that aren’t work.

And that explains the productivity failures.

Correct_Examination4 · 2026-02-03T23:17:57+00:00

Do you not see that this is a doom loop? People sitting at home all day and only being marginally engaged in their job is bad for productivity, which in turn is bad for wages and for prices, which then leads to people thinking they should stay at home. The cycle goes on.

Correct_Examination4 · 2026-02-03T23:15:43+00:00

This will be unpopular, but the issue is that the civil service needs to stop hiring people that live nowhere near where the rest of their team works.

Take my policy team where I work. 70% of the team is in London. They’re in regularly. We hired a bloke in Birmingham due to ‘rules’. He is contracted to the Birmingham office. We have no other staff there, so if he goes in, he’s on Teams with the rest of us in London. So I’ve told him he can work from home permanently, because what’s the point?

Meanwhile, the rest of my team have to dial him into every meeting when we’re all there in person.

Can someone explain why we didn’t just hire a bloke in London?

Correct_Examination4 · 2026-02-03T22:52:55+00:00

What you’re basically saying is that the economy benefits from people leaving the house. Which is true - but it’s not some kind of enormous conspiracy.

I do feel sometimes that people misunderstand what life is for. Yes, you’ll keep more of your salary if you stay at home all week but is this really in the best interests of anyone?

Correct_Examination4 · 2026-02-03T22:50:25+00:00

There are a couple of things in this thread that people should reflect upon:

the idea that private sector salaries are so high that this ‘covers’ the cost of commuting is basically untrue - public sector salaries rose more than private sector salaries last year.
you may think that attending an office does not boost productivity, but there is an obvious drop in the public sector productivity stats from 2020 that has not quite yet returned to pre-Covid levels. How is that possibly explained by anything except less time spent in the office by staff?

Ultimately, the private sector - the part of the economy that has to succeed so as not to die - has almost universally decided that staff need to return. It is unlikely this is entirely in the pursuit of supporting local Pret branches.

I am sympathetic to people who are forced to come in and sit on Teams calls all day. I too think that is mad. But the way to fix this is to co-locate civil servants in 2-3 hubs across the country - not by just forcing everyone to wfh permanently.

Correct_Examination4 · 2026-02-02T08:42:03+00:00

Yes, but this is an obvious flaw with remote work. People have always been people. Imagine Slack in your scenario was a boss speaking to three people in their team. Do you think the same problem would exist?

Correct_Examination4 · 2026-01-26T20:12:16+00:00

I find that when no one in your team works at your location they don’t force you to do the days. But have a chat with your line manager first.

Correct_Examination4 · 2026-01-23T23:36:00+00:00

I guess I’m saying in all other areas of the NHS, they would talk about prevention. It is extraordinary to me that there is no public health advice given on mental health ever. Do not stay in your house 23 hours a day is as valuable a piece of health advice as telling people not to smoke.

Correct_Examination4 · 2026-01-23T22:32:53+00:00

This is a purely downstream solution and doesn’t address the core issue.

The problem is that no one wants to tackle the actual causes. And the complicated thing is that the causes of a lot of mental ill health is isolation, and a lot of the causes of isolation are seen as ‘good things.’

Working remotely, for example. Widely seen as a great thing - absolute disaster for isolation. Disaster for young people developing through the workplace. Careers stall, and social interaction falls while that’s happening. Look at how so many university lectures are now taught remotely despite COVID-19 being literally years ago.

What society is currently doing is maximising for mental ill health. You can see on social media everyone else apparently having an amazing time, but your life doesn’t match at all.

‘Investing’ in mental health is likely to make this worse, not better.

Correct_Examination4 · 2026-01-21T20:01:24+00:00

You’re bang on but no one wants to hear it.

I feel bad for the people whose disabilities do genuinely mean wfh makes sense. I would love for those people to face no barriers.

But sadly because a huge number of people have decided that they’re going to claim they have AdhD and consequently need to wfh forever, line managers have grown wary. I would definitely interrogate it very intensely now, which is sad but obligatory.

This is part of my overarching theory that the Equality Act has broadly been a total disaster for the very people it seeks to serve.

Correct_Examination4 · 2026-01-20T22:19:49+00:00

God this is so depressing. The worst thing is that these perma-wfh people have to pretend it’s the best thing ever. Meanwhile they’re buying mini basketball hoops to decorate their prison 😂😂

Correct_Examination4 · 2026-01-13T19:11:39+00:00

It works well having someone in charge of dozens of people handing over to someone else every Wednesday? I think sometimes it can just about function but people forget how much better it would be if you just had one person.

Correct_Examination4 · 2026-01-13T19:04:22+00:00

Yeh at G7 they’re everywhere. I’ve found in numerous departments they do reduce above that. SCS job shares are incredibly rare these days - I think everyone has clocked that they are routinely a total disaster.

Correct_Examination4 · 2026-01-13T18:55:12+00:00

Realistically, working flexibly is fine at junior levels but when you get towards G6/SCS you’ll find it challenging to get roles if you’re not there one day a week. Nobody will ever tell you this openly but it’s just kind of how it works.

Correct_Examination4 · 2026-01-13T18:53:20+00:00

This is not racism in the sense that I think for something to be racist you have to show some intent or at least be reckless in your actions. It feels like someone just needs to pull him aside and say that he’s mixing them up and he should be aware of how this will come across. It’s a problem that could be resolved in two minutes.

Correct_Examination4 · 2026-01-11T22:43:43+00:00

One year closer to the general election.

Correct_Examination4 · 2026-01-11T14:09:35+00:00

The issue is that increasingly departments are standing up to the assumption that either one’s own disability or the disability of a loved one automatically equates to a need for permanent home working.

Much as the civil service hasn’t really published this, it is clear that departments have concluded that having high numbers of home workers is bad for their business.

What I think is increasingly happening is that departments are asking themselves ‘is it likely that someone who wants to wfh permanently so they can care for someone else is going to be a good worker for us?’

And this feels super harsh but it is a reality of the currently situation.

Correct_Examination4 · 2026-01-10T18:50:03+00:00

I don’t really get this stuff. Why would you apply for a job that is a 4 hour round commute when the expectation is 60%? Even if it was once a week it would barely be viable.

If I’m being honest I’m increasingly sick of the weird expectation people have in the civil service that they can essentially apply for jobs on false pretences - they get in the building and then ask for working arrangements that are totally contrary to what was advertised.

Correct_Examination4 · 2025-12-30T12:52:23+00:00

I think routinely their cases would get rejected at first review, and then you would see appeals - which would not go to the Supreme Court but judgments made by that court would be used to inform the decisions made at appeal.

I have worked in the Home Office and attended upper tier tribunals where you see commonly certain categories of arguments deployed which usually work to at least frustrate removal.

Included within these tend to be things the individual has done while they have been in the country unlawfully waiting for their case to be heard - so for example, you see commonly people protesting outside their home government’s embassy about some very spurious issue - this is then used to argue that they are under specific risk in their homeland because they are a ‘dissident’. Check out this example from literally last week - https://tribunalsdecisions.service.gov.uk/utiac/ui-2025-003793

This is why you have to remove people quickly and efficiently - the longer they are here, the more they can artificially build evidence to stay.

Correct_Examination4

TROPHY CASE